For all the advances in asymetric cryptography, Numbers Stations / OTP has remained the system of choice for many organizations. This says something about asymetric cryptography; either that it isnt trusted, that its impractical for espionage, or something else...
How will they get a subjective review of the audio quality?
Monopoly companies stopped worrying about this twenty years ago.
This is an extremely dumb idea obviously; the smarter (though not by much) companies are putting on special listening rooms for journalists to come and sit in to previw new recordings.
Probably, all monopoly companys are going to get themselvs "screening rooms" so that they can control who has access to what before its released.
cartel, since nearly every cd(especially new releases) are available used.
Of course, its total nonsense. Also, when you spend your time and money buying second hand catrel music, you are taking away these two most crucial things from independent music.
Part of the problem is that there are always people like this who have zero understanding of the dynamics involved. We not only have to fight against the monopoly, but also dumbasses.
The question is, how onerous are the actions of the RIAA, and at what point do your principles override your cultural conveniences?
Anyone that knows the facts realzes that the RIAA is beyond intolerable. From the DAT tax outrage, to the killing of Napster to the DRM that they are trying to force into every device, it should be clear to everyone that these people are a threat, to creativity and innovation as well as free expression in music.
The question is not at what point do the actions of the RIAA become too onerous. That point has already been passed. The REAL question is when are people going to stop buying and file trading monopoly music? It is important that the file trading of monopoly music stops, because the act of listening to it takes away attention from non monopoly music.
Non monopoly music needs to be distributed and listened to far and wide. This is essential. Many labels are taking the bold step of uncopyrighting their materials, but this alone is not enough.
This is a non-sequitir. Music this old can easily be had cheaper [ebay.com] than [ebay.com] retail [ebay.com]. The second-hand market is way underexplored.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey; the original poster is asking people to give up something that they really love. I used Led Zep as an example of something that would be too good to give up just because it is on a monopoly label. You can substitute something contemporary that a young ignorant whippersnapper would love as much, that is of a similar quality on a monopoly label....ummmm....that isnt doable is it?!
Come on.... If you really feel that major labels are screwing you, give them up. Support inedepent musicians and labels.
Peoples tastes in music, no matter if they post on Slashdot or not are very deeply entrenched in conventional, monopoly music.
Music is so much a part of a persons life that you are basically asking people to stop being who they are overnight, for a cause. Choosing to listen to non cartel music is not like switching between Windows and OSX, or choosing to use Open Source software exclusively. Can you imagine a Led Zep fan choosing to give up Led Zep because they are on Atlantic? Impossible. Thats what you are asking people to do.
Because The Monopoly has control of essentially the entire spectrum of music culture, for the majority of people, even people on Slashdot, dropping Monopoly music means cutting yourself off from that mainstream music culture, which is unthinkable to all but the truest of believers.
Of course, people who have already made this decision, for whatever reason, do not miss Mainstream Monopoly Mush at all, but its impossible to convince people that they would be "better off", because, like learning a new OS, it takes some work to reap the huge benefits.
Over the next few months, we are going to launch technology to organize and consolidate grassroots activity on policy issues affecting copyright and technology.
They are doing this by writing more code; this is what they mean by "launching new technology".
Code is the key to solving many problems. Like the problem of the RIAA and its inordinately and disproportionately strong political influence.
For example, by writing code, and creating an alternative copyright adminsitration system and organization to gather together the some 80% of copyrights that are not RIAA controlled, the writing of code will have a direct political impact on the issues surrounding compulsory DRM and RIAA / MPAA paid for legislation.
We need to have code written that organizes the scattered power in the world and focuses it to do our collective bidding. Either way, in the end, more code has to be written; Declan is right, and Public Knowledge are acknowledging this by writing code to solve a problem of political imbalance.
You have some choices; you can buy gold wedding bands made from gold mined in Wales; no slave labor in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysil iogogogoch methinks.
You can buy antique diamond rings; you will then not be supporting the modern diamond trade, and will also have something that has a determinable resale value for when you need to take back control of Slashdot.
Ethical / fair trading has entered into the cocoa and coffee sectors, but has yet to penetrate the diamond mining industry. This may be the way forward to stop the pernicious influence of the current buying and selling structure on the countries blessed with deposits. Until then, you have to either do without, or go antique to keep your wife's hands clean (literally).
I dont have a problem with editing films for TV, as long as the fact that there are edits is clearly stated before the film is shown.
In the UK, they cut everything, including Star Trek (removing references to the IRA for example) and they do not state before a film or show is aired that they have made cuts.
This amounts to false advertising. If they advertise that a film is to be shown, this means the film as released by the studio / director. If any edits have been made, then this is NOT the same film, but a corrupted version, and it should be clearly marked as such.
If people in the UK knew just how many cuts were made to TV broadcasts of films and shows (by a simple "edited for television" at the beginning) they would be outraged.
If true, there should be some very large custom-built hangers for these things that would show up in commercially available satellite photos.
The USAF are aware of this. If you were working for the USAF, and had an unlimited budget, where would YOU put a hangar for a large secret aircraft so that the hangar could not be seen by overflying satellites?
This could not have been the B2. The B2 is INCREDIBLY LOUD and doesnt fly at 200 feet over American / Western cities at night.
It cound not have been any kind of "Jet". Jets make alot of noise, and do not fly at 200 feet on their sides over cities at night.
It could not have been "Russian Stealth", for obvious reasons.
If you think that it was some secret military craft, you would be wrong, because the USAF NEVER tests its secret craft over heavily populated cities. That is why they built the desert bases for testing.
Halucination; unlikely, and the type of people who say this are really just cowards.
So. We have something that is clearly mechanical, flying silently under someones direction, in a place and in a manner that is out of the ordinary, and contrary to the way that the military use their aircraft.
What are we left with as an explanation? All the pathetic humor in the world wont make this stuff go away.
Face the facts, do your homework and DEAL WITH IT.
[...] Now this is the beginning of activation for Japan's national ID systems: 11 digit number national ID, networked resident record system based on the ID numbers, and national ID card that based on contactless radio transaction smartcard, with 32 bit CPU and co-processor supposed to handle crypto and digital signature, which will be issued from 2003.
This status makes computer security specialists worried. If organized crimes or foreign spy agents get access to one of these, that could be a disaster. Clear and present danger is here now. World class crackers might be difficult to ignore temptations to try their penetration skills on this network because it is built on Windows NT/2000 servers and possibly MS SQL. You got the idea? [...]
Macrovision is not a legally mandated content control system; what Hollings is asking for is a FEDERALLY MANDATED SYSTEM whereby it will become illegal to manufacture players that are non compliant with the broadcast flag standard.
This is the crucial difference between content control systems that are voluntarily implemented like macrovision and those that are mandatory, like the proposed broadcast flag.
There is no "right" that stops broadcasters producing technical means to prevent you from doing so. Can you find caselaw for that?
Since you asked:
TV broadcasters cannot add this flag to their broadcasts because this would remove the fair use rights of TV watchers; from the EFF:
"Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)"
Which is the same case I posted above.
FCC cannot impose broadcast flag...
on
MPAA vs. Television
·
· Score: 5, Informative
because people have the right to timeshift all of the tv they watch, not just the programming the broadcasters want. There is already caselaw substantiating this.
The MPAA tried shenanigans like this in '00 attacking RecordTV.com suceededing in shutting it down.
If PVRs were in every house instead of VCRs, there would be no chance of this getting by, but since this wont directly impact people for several years it will be too late to complain once the new generation of flag obeying goods arrives, and everyone will probably just accept that now, you have to PAY to record TV and watch it at a later date. Or this will kill the adoption of PVRs; once people realize that you cant record whatever you want with a flag-crippled PVR.
The smartest thing that M$ could do is just let Real do it. Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols
M$ will do this by incorporating the Helix source code into the Mafia Player codebase. The post says "includes... ALL of Real's protocols" NOT "reverse engineers ALL of Real's protocols".
If the Helix source is released under the GPL, then the source for that new, derivative player must be released. Real have chosen a licence that does not make this happen.
If Real want to PREVENT the scenario that the poster has laid out, all they have to do is GPL the source of the Helix based player.
This has nothing to do with M$ separately reverse engineering the protocols belonging to Real, which, AFAIK will be actionable.
give this new version a nice interface with less advertizing clutter and make it available as minor free update available as part of a service patch. Not that we have never seen this done before, right? Do these companies ever learn?
Indeed, will they ever learn? Real have a huge amount of momentum behind their player. The majority of the world doesnt care if the source if GPL or not, they just want an app that works.
If Real think for a second that their player is under attack in the same way that Netscapes browser was under attack, they need to go GPL now, because MS will not touch it if they do.
M$ will not be able to go into court to and refuse to obey the GPL when they spend hundreds of millions ensuring that everyone obeys the licences that their own software is released under.
From what I understannd, Real are going to release some of the source code for their new player (excluding the codecs).
The original poster said that M$ could use this source code in Mafia Player, without having to return any code to the public (under the proposed licence, which is not the GPL).
This has nothing to do with reverse engineering of streams, but rather the source for the new player which anyone can incorporate into other software, without the rest of the source for the new product being subject to release.
Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols
Thats why Raal should GPL the source; that scenario would not be possible without M$ being forced to free the source to Mafia Player, which they will never do.
Re:Good series - what motive?
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 2
Ok, what I meant was unbiased, fair, evenhanded, unprejudiced, just, neutral, uninfluenced, well-rounded, balanced AND factual.
If an article is all of those things, AND has an agenda....Thats Cool(R).
Re:Good series - what motive?
on
Forbes on Linux
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat?...It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this.
You are in shock; It will pass.
Even if the articles do have an agenda, it doesnt matter as long as they are factual, and even if they were not factual, its par for the course with much journalism today.
When ideas are at war, lies are as the sharpest of swords.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. It would simply switch from broadcast and ciphers to the diplomatic bag and codes
Where of course, Numbers Stations come in.
For all the advances in asymetric cryptography, Numbers Stations / OTP has remained the system of choice for many organizations. This says something about asymetric cryptography; either that it isnt trusted, that its impractical for espionage, or something else...
When I use the term "OPT", it is implicit that I mean "when OTPt is deployed correctly".
It would be a little crazy to say "OTP, when it is deployed improperly, cannot be broken", now wouldnt it?
All of cryptography depends on a small number of problems that are believed to be hard.
This is not true; The "One Time Pad" does not rely on a difficult problem like factoring for its basis.
And all bets are definitely off when quantum computers arrive on the scene. Maybe someday we'll look back fondly on the golden age of privacy.
OTP is unbreakable, and so "the golden age of privacy" will not end because of quantum computers.
Now legislation ending the golden age of privacy is another matter entirely.
How will they get a subjective review of the audio quality?
Monopoly companies stopped worrying about this twenty years ago.
This is an extremely dumb idea obviously; the smarter (though not by much) companies are putting on special listening rooms for journalists to come and sit in to previw new recordings.
Probably, all monopoly companys are going to get themselvs "screening rooms" so that they can control who has access to what before its released.
cartel, since nearly every cd(especially new releases) are available used.
Of course, its total nonsense. Also, when you spend your time and money buying second hand catrel music, you are taking away these two most crucial things from independent music.
Part of the problem is that there are always people like this who have zero understanding of the dynamics involved. We not only have to fight against the monopoly, but also dumbasses.
The question is, how onerous are the actions of the RIAA, and at what point do your principles override your cultural conveniences?
Anyone that knows the facts realzes that the RIAA is beyond intolerable. From the DAT tax outrage, to the killing of Napster to the DRM that they are trying to force into every device, it should be clear to everyone that these people are a threat, to creativity and innovation as well as free expression in music.
The question is not at what point do the actions of the RIAA become too onerous. That point has already been passed. The REAL question is when are people going to stop buying and file trading monopoly music? It is important that the file trading of monopoly music stops, because the act of listening to it takes away attention from non monopoly music.
Non monopoly music needs to be distributed and listened to far and wide. This is essential. Many labels are taking the bold step of uncopyrighting their materials, but this alone is not enough.
This is a non-sequitir. Music this old can easily be had cheaper [ebay.com] than [ebay.com] retail [ebay.com]. The second-hand market is way underexplored.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey; the original poster is asking people to give up something that they really love. I used Led Zep as an example of something that would be too good to give up just because it is on a monopoly label. You can substitute something contemporary that a young ignorant whippersnapper would love as much, that is of a similar quality on a monopoly label....ummmm....that isnt doable is it?!
Come on.... If you really feel that major labels are screwing you, give them up. Support inedepent musicians and labels.
Peoples tastes in music, no matter if they post on Slashdot or not are very deeply entrenched in conventional, monopoly music.
Music is so much a part of a persons life that you are basically asking people to stop being who they are overnight, for a cause. Choosing to listen to non cartel music is not like switching between Windows and OSX, or choosing to use Open Source software exclusively. Can you imagine a Led Zep fan choosing to give up Led Zep because they are on Atlantic? Impossible. Thats what you are asking people to do.
Because The Monopoly has control of essentially the entire spectrum of music culture, for the majority of people, even people on Slashdot, dropping Monopoly music means cutting yourself off from that mainstream music culture, which is unthinkable to all but the truest of believers.
Of course, people who have already made this decision, for whatever reason, do not miss Mainstream Monopoly Mush at all, but its impossible to convince people that they would be "better off", because, like learning a new OS, it takes some work to reap the huge benefits.
Over the next few months, we are going to launch technology to organize and consolidate grassroots activity on policy issues affecting copyright and technology.
They are doing this by writing more code; this is what they mean by "launching new technology".
Code is the key to solving many problems. Like the problem of the RIAA and its inordinately and disproportionately strong political influence.
For example, by writing code, and creating an alternative copyright adminsitration system and organization to gather together the some 80% of copyrights that are not RIAA controlled, the writing of code will have a direct political impact on the issues surrounding compulsory DRM and RIAA / MPAA paid for legislation.
We need to have code written that organizes the scattered power in the world and focuses it to do our collective bidding. Either way, in the end, more code has to be written; Declan is right, and Public Knowledge are acknowledging this by writing code to solve a problem of political imbalance.
You have some choices; you can buy gold wedding bands made from gold mined in Wales; no slave labor in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysil iogogogoch methinks.
You can buy antique diamond rings; you will then not be supporting the modern diamond trade, and will also have something that has a determinable resale value for when you need to take back control of Slashdot.
Ethical / fair trading has entered into the cocoa and coffee sectors, but has yet to penetrate the diamond mining industry. This may be the way forward to stop the pernicious influence of the current buying and selling structure on the countries blessed with deposits. Until then, you have to either do without, or go antique to keep your wife's hands clean (literally).
the obvious truth, "criminal fraud committed with full knowledge it was a crime".
We call this Libel / Slander.
I dont have a problem with editing films for TV, as long as the fact that there are edits is clearly stated before the film is shown.
In the UK, they cut everything, including Star Trek (removing references to the IRA for example) and they do not state before a film or show is aired that they have made cuts.
This amounts to false advertising. If they advertise that a film is to be shown, this means the film as released by the studio / director. If any edits have been made, then this is NOT the same film, but a corrupted version, and it should be clearly marked as such.
If people in the UK knew just how many cuts were made to TV broadcasts of films and shows (by a simple "edited for television" at the beginning) they would be outraged.
If true, there should be some very large custom-built hangers for these things that would show up in commercially available satellite photos.
The USAF are aware of this. If you were working for the USAF, and had an unlimited budget, where would YOU put a hangar for a large secret aircraft so that the hangar could not be seen by overflying satellites?
Underground.
Before you reply to this, try and THINK.
This could not have been the B2. The B2 is INCREDIBLY LOUD and doesnt fly at 200 feet over American / Western cities at night.
It cound not have been any kind of "Jet". Jets make alot of noise, and do not fly at 200 feet on their sides over cities at night.
It could not have been "Russian Stealth", for obvious reasons.
If you think that it was some secret military craft, you would be wrong, because the USAF NEVER tests its secret craft over heavily populated cities. That is why they built the desert bases for testing.
Halucination; unlikely, and the type of people who say this are really just cowards.
So. We have something that is clearly mechanical, flying silently under someones direction, in a place and in a manner that is out of the ordinary, and contrary to the way that the military use their aircraft.
What are we left with as an explanation? All the pathetic humor in the world wont make this stuff go away.
Face the facts, do your homework and DEAL WITH IT.
I'd guess he saw a B2.
Are you retarded? It was flying on its side at 200 FEET.
Also, you have obviously never HEARD the B2 Bomber; it makes an INCREDIBLY LOUD NOISE. The poster said that it flew SILENTLY.
The B2 NEVER files at 200 feet over American / Western cities at night.
Try harder!
It was probably a jet.
The poster said it was silent. If it was a jet, he would have heard jet engine noise.
If it was silent, this means that it is either propelled by some secret military engine that is completely silent, or it is not of human manufacture.
If anyone has a link to a site where there is proof of a working engine, that can power a jet sized aircraft without making any sound, please post it.
[...]
Now this is the beginning of activation for Japan's national ID systems: 11
digit number national ID, networked resident record system based on the ID
numbers, and national ID card that based on contactless radio transaction
smartcard, with 32 bit CPU and co-processor supposed to handle crypto and
digital signature, which will be issued from 2003.
This status makes computer security specialists worried. If organized
crimes or foreign spy agents get access to one of these, that could be a
disaster. Clear and present danger is here now. World class crackers might
be difficult to ignore temptations to try their penetration skills on this
network because it is built on Windows NT/2000 servers and possibly MS SQL.
You got the idea?
[...]
my bold emphasis (as if you needed it)
Taken from Politech.
Amazing ay?
Macrovision is not a legally mandated content control system; what Hollings is asking for is a FEDERALLY MANDATED SYSTEM whereby it will become illegal to manufacture players that are non compliant with the broadcast flag standard.
This is the crucial difference between content control systems that are voluntarily implemented like macrovision and those that are mandatory, like the proposed broadcast flag.
There is no "right" that stops broadcasters producing technical means to prevent you from doing so. Can you find caselaw for that?
Since you asked:
TV broadcasters cannot add this flag to their broadcasts because this would remove the fair use rights of TV watchers; from the EFF:
"Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.
In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)"
Which is the same case I posted above.
because people have the right to timeshift all of the tv they watch, not just the programming the broadcasters want. There is already caselaw substantiating this.
The MPAA tried shenanigans like this in '00 attacking RecordTV.com suceededing in shutting it down.
If PVRs were in every house instead of VCRs, there would be no chance of this getting by, but since this wont directly impact people for several years it will be too late to complain once the new generation of flag obeying goods arrives, and everyone will probably just accept that now, you have to PAY to record TV and watch it at a later date. Or this will kill the adoption of PVRs; once people realize that you cant record whatever you want with a flag-crippled PVR.
OK. Lets do it this way.
... ALL of Real's protocols" NOT "reverse engineers ALL of Real's protocols".
The smartest thing that M$ could do is just let Real do it. Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols
M$ will do this by incorporating the Helix source code into the Mafia Player codebase. The post says "includes
If the Helix source is released under the GPL, then the source for that new, derivative player must be released. Real have chosen a licence that does not make this happen.
If Real want to PREVENT the scenario that the poster has laid out, all they have to do is GPL the source of the Helix based player.
This has nothing to do with M$ separately reverse engineering the protocols belonging to Real, which, AFAIK will be actionable.
give this new version a nice interface with less advertizing clutter and make it available as minor free update available as part of a service patch. Not that we have never seen this done before, right? Do these companies ever learn?
Indeed, will they ever learn? Real have a huge amount of momentum behind their player. The majority of the world doesnt care if the source if GPL or not, they just want an app that works.
If Real think for a second that their player is under attack in the same way that Netscapes browser was under attack, they need to go GPL now, because MS will not touch it if they do.
M$ will not be able to go into court to and refuse to obey the GPL when they spend hundreds of millions ensuring that everyone obeys the licences that their own software is released under.
From what I understannd, Real are going to release some of the source code for their new player (excluding the codecs).
The original poster said that M$ could use this source code in Mafia Player, without having to return any code to the public (under the proposed licence, which is not the GPL).
This has nothing to do with reverse engineering of streams, but rather the source for the new player which anyone can incorporate into other software, without the rest of the source for the new product being subject to release.
Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols
Thats why Raal should GPL the source; that scenario would not be possible without M$ being forced to free the source to Mafia Player, which they will never do.
Ok, what I meant was unbiased, fair, evenhanded, unprejudiced, just, neutral, uninfluenced, well-rounded, balanced AND factual.
If an article is all of those things, AND has an agenda....Thats Cool(R).
Is Forbes owned by someone who doesn't like Bill Gates, for instance? Or who has shares in Red Hat?...It is so uncommon to come across truly unbiased factual information in the US press these days I find it hard to believe that there isn't something behind this.
You are in shock; It will pass.
Even if the articles do have an agenda, it doesnt matter as long as they are factual, and even if they were not factual, its par for the course with much journalism today.
When ideas are at war, lies are as the sharpest of swords.